Friday, August 31, 2012

"Who's more repulsive than Todd Akin"

As you might guess, Shallit picked a Christian apologist-- William Lane Craig-- who has come to Akin's defense about the Republican Senate candidate's statement about the likelihood of pregnancy from rape.

In case you forget the details of Akin's statement, I posted on it here.

So to answer Dr. Shallit's rhetorical question, here are two people who are more repulsive than Todd Akin:

Actually sexually assaulted women and then slandered them in court and in the press; used a 22-year-old White House intern as Presidential blow-up doll and then dragged her reputation through the mud and then lied about it under oath and had his law license stripped by the Arkansas Supreme Court; has been credibly accused of the rape of Juanita Broaddrick. Elected President by liberal Democrats twice.

Actually killed a young woman by getting drunk, driving his car off a bridge, and leaving the woman trapped in the car for hours to drown while he sobered up and called his lawyers and political advisors in order to save his political career. Re-elected Senator by liberal Democrats for decades.

Actually, there's a third person who's considerably more repulsive than Todd Akin:

Jeffrey O. Shallit

Dr. Shallit is a outspoken liberal who likely has posters of Clinton and Kennedy adorning his room in his mother's basement.

What's more, Dr. Shallit, who finds Mr. Akin-- a staunch defender of innocent life-- repulsive, has himself written favorably about eugenic abortion of handicapped children.

Dr. Shallit:

"... why are decisions [labeled] as "eugenic" necessarily bad? Why, exactly, would the world be better off with more Down's syndrome children?"

So who is more repulsive than Todd Akin? Here's the answer to Dr. Shallit's question:

1) Men-- even liberal icons-- who actually sexually assault women.

2) Men-- even liberal icons-- who actually kill women.

3) Dimwit hypocrite liberal bloggers who ignore actual sexual assault by their political idols and ignore actual killing of women by their political idols and who publicly champion eugenic abortion of handicapped children.

93 comments:

Yes, all of those men are pretty repulsive. But I was still pretty repulsed by Akin's comment.

It's tempting to say "But the Democrats have done worse!" In other situations, the Democrats are quick to quip "The Republicans have done worse!"

It's childish. Without or without a point of reference, Akin's comment was sickening. Sadly, he's decided to be bullheaded and continue with the race. Now the people of Missouri have a choice between him and Claire McCaskill. Ew.

That would be because -- deny it though I am confident you will -- you are, at heart, a feminist ... and it "offends" you that not all men are willing to lie to themselves, and lie in public, that women, simply by being women, are somehow more morally pure and elevated than we men are.

For the people who know-and-admit that they are "liberals" or feminists (which is to say, puppets of the left), Akin's “crime” was:1) to openly state that there is no moral justification for elective abortion, not even when the baby was conceived by rape (or incest);2) to openly state that not all accusations of rape were actually rapes.

For people who like to imagine that they are conservatives, but are really “liberals” who just don’t (yet) want to go to all the places demanded by the logic of the “liberal” premises to which they uncritically subscribe -- which is to say, puppets of the left, who vainly imagine they are opposed to leftism -- Akin's “crime” was:1) to openly state that there is no moral justification for elective abortion, not even when the baby was conceived by rape (or incest);2) to openly state that not all accusations of rape were actually rapes.

You're right, although a bit blunt. Your thesis that even professed conservatives tend to use liberal rhetoric is true. I think that it is one of the reasons for the success of liberal ideology in our culture. We would all admit that it is astonishing bullshit, but even conservatives feel pressure to conform to it. Imagine the pressure that people who are not conservatives, but not wholly liberal, feel.

Well ... there was that one time when I thought I had been wrong, but it turned out that I was mistaken about that.

But, seriously ...

"Your thesis that even professed conservatives tend to use liberal rhetoric is true. I think that it is one of the reasons for the success of liberal ideology in our culture."

It's the major reason ... it sure didn't happen because of any reasoning.

Over a century ago, the 'Progressives' took over the "education" of the young in the publicly-funded indoctrination centers ... and used the means of "education" to make what we now call 'conservatism' appear all-but-unthinkable to most persons who pass through their hands, and certainly too embarrassing to admit to believing.

By now, we *all* have been marinated in leftist ideology and terminology our entire lives; most of us – even most of those who believe they are fiercely opposed to leftism and immune to its lying blandishments -- implicitly subscribe to the false premises of leftism, because they were foist upon us when we were innocents (which is to say, when we were ignorant children) by people we were supposed to be able to trust had our best interests at heart and would teach us truth.

Since the ‘Progressives’ got their hands on it, “education” isn’t about teaching the young how to think critically, but is rather about training them in what ‘ideas’, in the sense of ideological litmus-testing, they are allowed to entertain.

"We would all admit that it is astonishing bullshit, but even conservatives feel pressure to conform to it. Imagine the pressure that people who are not conservatives, but not wholly liberal, feel."

The words we use both reflect and influence the ideas we think and *can* think. This is why I chided Joey about using ‘she’ in a construction contrary to correct English usage.

====Trish expressed revulsion at whatever it is that Akin said. I can guarantee you … and her … that she cannot adduce even one reason to justify even the hint of such revulsion. ALL she will be able to supply as justification for her revulsion is emoting … and the fact that he is a mere man (*) who made an observation that can be construed as an unflattering remark about some women.

(*) and, I’d not be too shocked if the words ‘old’ and ‘white’ found their way into such justification.

Now, of course I am not saying that Trish is a consciously bad person. But, I am saying that she has been trained to react emotively, and violently so, to any hint of the idea that women are every bit the sinners that men are.

And, in the end, when one is willingly acting as cannon-fodder for the leftist destruction of our civilization – without which we cannot live -- does it really matter than one just fell into that role because one was trained from childhood for it by wicked people and their dupes?

Clearly said and clearly true. I honestly had not seen it that way before, but you're right. I often feel as if I have to dress conservative ideas (i.e. truth) up in liberal-sounding dress. Virtually all of my teachers were libs, and I guess I'm still trying to please them.

The logical consequence of the situation that you so accurately diagnose is that in order to retake the culture, we conservatives have to retake the language. That means being ruthlessly honest, and suffering no fools.

This question remains: is it appropriate to cross-dress a little bit liberal, to win elections and friends? It's a perennial debate in the Republican party, and I've been of two minds on it.

Atkins is basically saying that if you got pregnant then you weren’t raped. I’m sure he’s locked up the rapist vote in Missouri, and if he wins the pro-rape lobby will finally have an advocate in the Senate.

If your Christian values lead you to think a couple of powerful Democrats suffering some unintended drama because they’re having more sex than they should is more repulsive than wanting to force all women to carry rape babies to term by denying rape, don’t be surprised if some people look down on Christian values.

[Atkins is basically saying that if you got pregnant then you weren’t raped. I’m sure he’s locked up the rapist vote in Missouri, and if he wins the pro-rape lobby will finally have an advocate in the Senate.]

Felons vote nearly all Democratic, KW. And the rapist vote already gave us one Democrat president.

[If your Christian values lead you to think a couple of powerful Democrats suffering some unintended drama because they’re having more sex than they should is more repulsive than wanting to force all women to carry rape babies to term by denying rape, don’t be surprised if some people look down on Christian values.]

So your solution to the horror of getting pregnant after rape is to kill the baby. And your solution to getting pregnant when you don't want to is to kill the baby.

We Christians believe that killing the innocent is not any solution to evil.

I’ve answered this before, but because no other viewpoints can penetrate your closed mind. I’ll go ahead and answer again.

When I ask myself what it means to be a human being, what differentiates us from other animals; the characteristics that make us unique aren’t shared by an embryo. As a embryo / fetus develops and the body building genes that make us different than other animals are expressed the fetus becomes more and more human, but early in a pregnancy the human embryo has more in common with a dog embryo than a fully developed human.

Of course you need to draw the line somewhere. I would draw it at birth, and be willing to compromise at 20 weeks if the anti-abortion forces would agree, but of course they won’t.

You might as well ask what is a protostar from the astrophysical perspective and then declare that you can't say it is a protostar. Clearly a protostar can develop into a star with time, but it is not a star yet. Calling it a star would be quite misleading.

Same with an embryo. It isn't a human being at a stage when it consists of a few cells. It cannot see or feel, it has no cognitive abilities and in fact it has no brain. Some mythologies endow it with a "soul," but you have to be a believer to agree to that.

Would you force a business owner to serve a black person against his wishes?

Why would you be willing to compromise at twenty weeks? What milestone is passed at twenty weeks? I hope you know that drawing the line at birth is absurd. There is literally no difference between a child in her mother's arms and a child ten minutes prior or ten hours prior.

Oleg, you may not believe that a few cells is a person. But please understand that "few cells" stage lasts barely a few hours. By the time the woman realizes she is pregnant, the process is two weeks underway. By the time she makes the appointment and actually has the abortion, more time has passed. So what you're arguing seems kind of silly.

We're talking about people like Melissa from the previous post. She survived an attempt on her life and is now a grown woman. Not bad for someone who wasn't really alive in the first place. She was just a lump of cells, right?

Melissa Ohden was at least 22 weeks old, counting from conception, when she was born. (That's the earliest age of viability for a fetus.) I don't think abortions should be performed at such a late stage.

Biologically, a zygote/embryo/fetus is a human being. That simply means that he/she is a living member of the species homo sapiens.

Early human beings (embryos) don't have developed brains. They don't have arms and legs yet. That's normal. That is what human beings are when they are early embryos. If they did have brains/arms/legs at one week of gestation, they wouldn't be human beings. That's the point. Human beings have different attributes at different ages. In more technical language, the substance of each of us from conception to death is "human being". The accidents change-- brains, arms, legs, hair, teeth, etc.

Human being is merely a biological description of each of us, from conception to death. That is the science, and there is no debate about the science.

The real question here is about personhood. A person is a human being (neglect non-human persons for now) who is entitled to moral and legal protection and who has rights, such as the right to life.

Is a human being a person at each moment from conception to death? I say yes. Pro-aborts say no. Pro-aborts say that some human beings are not persons, and have no rights.

If you think forcing me to re-phrase my views in your preferred language would change my mind you would be mistaken. You’re playing semantics games. My views really don’t depend on the definition of human being or person if those definitions are divorced from any developmental milestones. If I where forced to speak in the primitive imprecise language of anti-abortion religious zealots I would say, “I think it OK for a woman to kill a little human baby growing inside her if she wants to.”

As long as abortion is legal and available I wouldn’t go as far as some ethicists and proclaim that infanticide is OK, but they have a point regarding the state of newborns. At birth only the spinal cord and brainstem are very well developed, while the higher regions are still rather primitive. Sure, newborn may be able to follow a ball with their eyes, or fail their arms when they’re startled, but these certainly aren’t uniquely human responses. You don’t remember being a baby. Your brain hadn’t yet developed the means to from long term or declarative memory, which are vital parts of our cognitive abilities and the human experience. Drawing the line at birth seems entirely reasonable to me.

Twenty weeks is my compromise position in recognition of the fact that you find abortion so morally reprehensible. Although, given conservatives opposition to birth control, I can’t get over the notion it’s not so much abortion you find reprehensible, it’s people enjoying sex without consequences.

Joey: "... There is literally no difference between a child in her mother's arms and ..."

Joey, please train yourself to stop using leftist political language. Is a hypothetical child more valuable -- does your argument carry more moral weight -- if you willfully butcher the language and willingly cooperate in the further brainwashing into leftism of yourself and your readers?

The first is: are zygotes/embryos/fetuses human beings. The answer is yes. No debate. There are simply people who understand it, people who don't understand it, and people who understand but lie about it.

The second argument is whether it is moral to kill some innocent human beings, such as human beings in the womb.

Pro-life folks say no. Pro-abort say yes.

You should have the guts to admit what you're actually arguing. You're arguing that its ethical to kill human beings if they are very young and weak.

[If you think forcing me to re-phrase my views in your preferred language would change my mind you would be mistaken. You’re playing semantics games.]

Telling the scientific truth about human biology isn't a "semantic game". A human being begins at conception and ends at death. Biology 101.

[My views really don’t depend on the definition of human being or person if those definitions are divorced from any developmental milestones.]

A fine genocidal creed. For all of human history, strong people have killed weak people based substantially on the argument that the weak were not fully human beings-- they were natural slaves, or niggers, or degenerates, or "Juden". The denial of personhood to human beings that you deem inferior to yourself is the indispensable element in genocide, racism, slavery, etc.

The Christian view-- my view-- is that all human beings are persons, and all persons have unalienable rights, among which are the right to life...

I can’t imagine that a world where women are forced to have babies against their will would be any better than a world without abortion.

You can and do make your arguments forcefully and often, and I believe recent history shows that you side has convinced many people to reject abortion as an option. That’s great. That’s the way it should be. Make your argument and let people decide.

What complicates the issue is that at the root of your argument is a religious belief. There’s no doubt that the most vocal and passionate abortion foes are also the most religious. You’re position is artificially supported by your claim that you represent what God wants, with the all the promise of reward and threat of punishment that that implies. It’s not fair really, but it is what it is. Unfortunately for you when it comes to law in this country, what God wants isn’t part of the legal conversation, hence all these semantics games.

We're forced to all kinds of things against our will. We are forced to feed our children. We're forced to clothe our children. We're forced not to have sex with our children. We're forced to not murder our children.

The issue is not "force". All law and enFORCEment of basic moral standards involve force of one form or another.

It is immoral to kill innocent human beings, and it is morally necessary to defend innocent human beings from being killed, using force if necessary.

[You can and do make your arguments forcefully and often, and I believe recent history shows that you side has convinced many people to reject abortion as an option. That’s great. That’s the way it should be. Make your argument and let people decide.]

You would censor me if you could.

[What complicates the issue is that at the root of your argument is a religious belief. There’s no doubt that the most vocal and passionate abortion foes are also the most religious. You’re position is artificially supported by your claim that you represent what God wants, with the all the promise of reward and threat of punishment that that implies. It’s not fair really, but it is what it is. Unfortunately for you when it comes to law in this country, what God wants isn’t part of the legal conversation, hence all these semantics games.]

The predicate for our laws is that we have rights endowed by our Creator, and the concept of natural rights on which our Constitution is based is incomprehensible without reference to God.

Defense of all human beings at all stages of life is not necessarily a viewpoint based on religious belief-- Nat Hentoff is a good example of an atheist who has been a passionate pro-life advocate. The truth of the pro-life view is written in our hearts, even if we do not fully understand the Source of the truth.

You will notice that my arguments do not reference God. I only reference biology, logic, and natural rights.

These people's problem isn't that they are not intelligent, it's that they are not intellectually honest; it's that they are hypocrites with respect to truth and reason ... you know, to go along with their hypocrisy with respect to morality.

"human being (Homo sapiens), a culture-bearing primate that is anatomically similar and related to the other great apes but is distinguished by a more highly developed brain and a resultant capacity for articulate speech and abstract reasoning."

An embryo does not fit this definition at all. It can potentially develop into a human being, but it isn't one yet.

A little English lesson. 'Developing'; present participle, in the process of happening, but not to completion. 'Developed'; past particle, the process has completed. It's reached its ultimate state.

A developing human hasn't reached the state of being a human (being). A developed human, however, has reached the state of being a human (being).

The difference is often not recognized by monolinguists, but is obvious to students of other languages, such as German, which has tortuous constructions literally meaning such as 'the across the street walking man' and 'the across the street walked man', which mean different things.

["human being (Homo sapiens), a culture-bearing primate that is anatomically similar and related to the other great apes but is distinguished by a more highly developed brain and a resultant capacity for articulate speech and abstract reasoning."]

So are you asserting that handicapped people who can't speak or can't reason abstractly aren't human?

My point is that your rationalizations denying the personhood of a particular group of human beings has antecedents. Not too long ago, your view that some human beings had no right to life was quite consequential.

No, Mike, it's simply that we speak different languages. In your language, an embryo is equated with a person, and in mine it isn't. You have not put forward any arguments that demonstrate personhood of an embryo. You take that on faith, which I do not share with you. That's about it.

And I didn't "pout." I merely observed that a rational discourse between you and me is not going to happen.

And, in fact, it is not happening. All your arguments boil down to the assertion that an embryo is a human being and a person. I offered you a dictionary definition of a human being, and an embryo clear does not fit it, no matter what contortions you go through. What was your response? You basically implied that I am a Nazi. Do I take that seriously? No. Do I take you seriously? No.

As I have carefully explained, there are two arguments here. One is the biological status of the fetus. The other is the moral status of the fetus.

A useful term for the biological status is "human being", which is the vernacular for homo sapiens. A human fetus is a member of the species homo sapiens. A human being. A fetus is not an organ, nor a body waste, nor merely a part of another homo sapiens. A fetus is a homo sapiens. A human being.

A useful term for the moral status of a fetus is "person". Person is a moral/legal term, meaning a human being with rights, including the right to life.

While the fact that a fetus is a human being cannot be debated, the assertion that a fetus is a person can be debated.

To deny that a fetus is a person is to deny that all human beings have a right to life.

That is your argument. Face up to it. It is an argument, applied to other human beings, that has a long pedigree.

Here's a hint oleg: if your argument was used by defendants at Nuremberg, perhaps you should rethink it.

M.Egnor: "... You missed your calling, which was early 1940's Germany."

Acutally, that sort of thing was going on in the Weimar Republic ... and in the US at the same time. Much of it became fashionable in the US *before* in Europe.

I may have mentioned this to you before: my mother -- being a cripple and the child of a divorced and poor woman, and thus, "worthless" -- was used as a guinea-pig by "medical science" right here in the US in the 1930s. 'They' -- which included bureaucrats of the State (Indiana, in this case) -- had convinced my grandmother that my mother wouldn't be allowed an education if Grandma didn't allow them to mutilate my mother's legs, hips and lower back. To tell you the truth, I'm kind of surprised that they didn't sterilize her without telling anyone, while they had her opened up. That sort of thing was all the 'Progressive' rage at the time; and back then Indiana was, or rather, the people who ran the State were, very 'Progressive'.

The irony is that having decimated the word "liberal", these folks are reviving the term "Progressives".

Thanks to Progressive public education, few Americans understand what Progressivism was and is.

I'm sorry to hear of what happened to your mom. The history of my profession in this country in the 20th century has some very dark corners. It's disheartening to know how little of this history is taught to medical students. I try to get as much about eugenics etc into the curriculum where I teach as I can, but there is little interest in openly discussing it, and even less interest in teaching students about its present day manifestations, which are enormous.

M.Egnor: "Reductio ad Hitlerum is not a fallacy if you argument is in fact the prototype for genocide."

'Reductio ad Hitlerum' and 'No True Scotsman' and 'The Slippery Slope' are, for the most part, fallacious pseudo-fallacies invented by the 'Progressives' and atheists so as to shield their bad reasoning (including out-right lies) from critical evaluation.

'The Slippery Slope' accusation is used to discredit-and-dismiss a correct identification of another conclusion, one that no one is yet willing to admit to holding, which logically and inescapably follows from the argument the 'Progressive' or atheist or Darwinist or Marxist or Freudian has just made.

The 'No True Scotsman' accusation is used to discredit-and-dismiss a correct identification of a false equivocation that is critical to the "success" of the argument the 'Progressive' or atheist or Darwinist or Marxist or Freudian has just made.

The 'Reductio ad Hitlerum' accusation is a species of the 'Slippery Slope' accusation. The 'Progressive' or atheist or Darwinist or Marxist or Freudian presents what pleases him to call an argument for something he wants to assert; his opponent points out that the very same logic can be used to justify the Third Reich's wicked policies,which everyone publically agrees is the epitome of moral evil. The 'Progressive' or atheist or Darwinist or Marxist or Freudian "defends" his position by rolling out the 'Reductio ad Hitlerum' accusation.

You, guys, are a hoot. The expression No true Scotsman has been popularized by Antony Flew. One might think that his conversion to deism would make this phrase kosher in certain circles. LOL.

In any event, it does not matter who coined this or that phrase. They are used on both sides of the aisle. William Safire, no progressive, wrote a column about a slippery slope in 1981. If it's good for him, should be good for you as well.

I notice you're now deleting comments, yours and mine, as when you confused me with Oleg.

You're playing word games; a human being is a person. They're synonyms. They're legal concepts implying rights and responsibilities. A fertilized ovum isn't a human being (person). A newborn is a human being (person). A fetus in the uterus 1 day before birth is still a person (human being). At some arbitrary point, the fetus is 'given' rights, similar to the way teenagers from one day to the next suddenly become adults with the right to legally drink amongst other things.

The Supreme Court decide in Roe versus Wade that it was at the point of viability, but didn't define it, leaving it up to the states to regulate. I'd personally prefer to put it at the point when the nervous system has developed sufficiently to feel pain, around 24 weeks, which is earlier than viability and also a lower level of function than many impaired children and adults, so I'm not going to support killing of children and adults on the basis of level of mental function.

Just because I'd support euthanasia in isolated strictly controlled cases, doesn't mean I want a return of the Tiergartenstrasse-4 so-called 'euthanasia' program, which deliberately set up to be a murder program (the Nazis in 1939 decided that they need 100,000 hospital beds to accommodate the wounded from the invasion of Poland, and that's how many they planned to kill).

I'd also prefer to lower 24 weeks to 20, to be conservative, with abortion legal on demand before then and strictly controlled after then. Many American states have adopted 20 weeks as the cutoff. My home state, Western Australia, has also adopted 20 weeks. Exceptions can be sought in cases of maternal or fetal disease, but they have to go to a panel of doctors nominated by the Minister of Health, and exceptions aren't automatically granted. Applications for exceptions for psychosocial reasons or minor remedial fetal abnormalities are routinely rejected.

If there have been 50 million abortions in America, then that's a sign of failure in the education system. All children should get comprehensive sex education. And also, all women should have access to affordable contraception.

Abortion should the last resort, for contraception failure, rape or incest, and should be rare.

I don't have any direct personal interest in abortion. Besides a niece (ironically from the religious wing of the family) who fell pregnant and hid the pregnancy well past 20 weeks out of shame (it's not true that being 'good' stops experimentation). She kept the baby and eventually married someone else several years later, so everything eventually turned out OK. Although, I would have been quite happy to have written prescriptions for the OC, as I did for another niece (at the request of her mother, my sister-in-law).

I rarely delete comments. One of yours got caught in the spam filter. I released it.

I do sometimes confuse you with oleg. You guys blend after a while.

[You're playing word games; a human being is a person. ]

When does human life begin?

[The Supreme Court decide in Roe versus Wade that it was at the point of viability, but didn't define it, leaving it up to the states to regulate. I'd personally prefer to put it at the point when the nervous system has developed sufficiently to feel pain, around 24 weeks, which is earlier than viability and also a lower level of function than many impaired children and adults, so I'm not going to support killing of children and adults on the basis of level of mental function.]

Whew! With abortion proponents, it's always reassuring to hear that they restrict killing to the earliest stages of life.

[Just because I'd support euthanasia in isolated strictly controlled cases, doesn't mean I want a return of the Tiergartenstrasse-4 so-called 'euthanasia' program]

Whew again!

It's nice to know that you advocate just a little bit of killing of innocents, instead of a lot.

I take it you're not an idiot? I assume that you are just extremely dishonest. I didn't say that Roe versus Wade decided when human life began. It decided when a conceptus acquires rights and legally becomes a human being or person. It decided that it was at viability, which at the time would have been around 28 weeks.

I'd put it at the time that the CNS has developed to being capable of feeling pain, around 24 weeks, but would make it 20 weeks, as many states do, to be conservative.

And anyway, I'm not pro-abortion. I'm pro-choice. An adult has the right to decide what happens to her body, within limits. If you don't like abortion, then just influence your family members so that they don't have one. In the unlikely event that there's a God who's annoyed at abortion, then you can take satisfaction that women who have had an abortion will suffer in the afterlife, not that there's one.

Your question is irrelevant. The question is, when are the legal rights of personhood acquired? And I have answered that many times. There's nothing magic about conception. The germ cells within the parents were alive for decades before fertilization. There's no vital energy magically animating lifeless lumps of organic matter. There's no ephemeral soul suddenly being implanted to produce humanness.

From a biological-- b-i-o-l-o-g-i-c-a-l-- standpoint, when does human life begin?

From a biological standpoint, human life never begins. It certainly doesn't begin at conception. Sperm and ova are as much human and alive as a fertilized egg. Asking when human life begins from a b-i-o-l-o-g-i-c-a-l standpoint is an idiotic question, which would only be asked by a complete moron.

Oh right, I forgot who was asking. So that you would ask that question was predictable.

Calling your opponent a liar is as uncivil as it gets. You have done so more and more frequently lately. From this I conclude that you are either not interested in a dialogue or resort to insults merely from frustration. Perhaps both. Either way, a person who does not treat his opponents with respect does not deserve a dialogue. So I will no longer engage you on these pages.

Your denial of the humanity of human beings from conception on is much worse than a lie. I was being charitable.

You apparently found that your support for abortion could only be maintained by lying about the science of human development, which as an educated man you know well enough to understand that you are lying.

But it is not your lie that is reprehensible. It is the viewpoint that it is ethical to kill very young human beings if they are inconvenient that is reprehensible. Your lie merely services your manifestly ugly viewpoint.

You'll be missed. We'll have to get someone else to make disingenuous nonsense arguments to justify killing innocents.

And, if one wants to broaden the scope from the US to the whole world, I expect that significantly more than 51% of the world's population would be demanding that this Anonymouse be put to death. So, *obviously* that would be the moral thing to do!

Sure, her purpose -- to deny that Roman Polanski had actually raped the child whom he had plied with drugs and alcohol and then raped -- was reprehensible.

But, as I explained earlier, the *reason* she settled on saying 'rape-rape' is the same reason that Akin settled on saying 'legitimate rape' -- in the "liberal" and feminist circles in which she swims, or the "legal profession" circles in which he swims, and in both cases orchestrated by the leftists, the word 'rape' no longer actually means rape. Both of them were trying to distinguish actual rape from that-which-is-not-rape-but-that-we-are-supposed-to-pretend-is-rape.

"The Christian idea of the world is that it originated in a very complicated process of evolution but that it nevertheless still comes in its depths from the Logos. It thus bears reason in itself."

Benedict XVI

"The universe is not the product of darkness and unreason; it comes from intelligence, freedom, and from the beauty that is identical with love"

Benedict XVI

"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God."

Benedict XVI

"Atheism is a disease of the soul before it becomes an error of understanding."

Plato

"Atheism is so senseless and odious to mankind that it never had many professors"

Isaac Newton

"I'm not an atheist, and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God."Albert Einstein

"Egnorance: The Egotistical Combination of Ignorance and Arrogance" Burt Humburg

"Egnor [is] an interesting example of the religious pathology that's going to be afflicting us for probably the next century..." P.Z. Myers

"...so far Dr.Egnor seems not to grasp the folly of his situation." Steven Novella

"Michael Egnor is giving every sign of continuing the shenanigans that has already made him infamous in skeptical circles." Steven Novella

"Dr. Egnor has his own blog now. Hilarity ensues..."Orac

"Egnor probably always was an arrogant asshole, also when he was an athiest. Then he had a midlife crisis, found religion and he became an even bigger asshole."

Troy

"...it is simply impossible for me to continue to believe that the "Michael Egnor" articles are being written by a real person who really believes what he (or she) writes." Mike Dunford

"Michael Egnor comes back for another helping of whup ass..." P.Z. Myers

"Dr. Egnor's deviously clever plan to destroy Darwinism once and for all..." Orac

"Dr. Egnor regularly laid down flaming swaths of stupid ..." Orac

"...Dr. Egnor reaches a new low..." Mark C. Chu-Carroll

"Egnor's machine is uninhabited by any ghost..." P.Z. MyersSuddenly [Egnor] knows law better than lawyers, he knows biology better than biologists, he pretends to know everything better than people who have actually studied whatever it is that Egnor feels threatens his crazy religion. Troy

"This is not an excuse for Dr. Egnor's ignorance – he threw his hat into the ring, he deserves what he gets. He should have had the proper humility to stay out..."Steven Novella

"...that paragon of arrogant ignorance, Dr. Michael Egnor, is back at it again..." Mark C. Chu-Carroll

"...Michael Egnor just can't get enough of making himself look like an idiot..." Mark C. Chu-Carroll

"Dr. Michael Egnor: Neurosurgeon, Stony Brook Faculty, and all around Dishonest Twit...based on the level of intellectual integrity that he just demonstrated, he's not someone I would trust to train a dog, much less a doctor" Mike Dunford

"Two Things that Don't Go Together: Michael Egnor and Intellectual Integrity...Someone once pointed out that when a dog pisses on a fire hydrant, it's not committing an act of vandalism. It's just being a dog..." Mike Dunford